NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

first I hope my english isn't too bad :D

I added a new proposal. The goal is to 'force' nations to provide some minimal information for free.

Why?
Because 'evil' nations strongest nations are disinformation. People who think that the nations way is the only way to do it are not able to choose. People that don't know about other political parties are not able to support them. People that don't know what democracy is are not able to use it.

I know it costs a bit, but here are some ways to reduce them:
There is the volunteer fire brigade/department why shouldn't there be a volunteer information brigade?

The internet thing:
You don't have to make available the full internet for alle people.
It is enough to make this single internet ressource available in some locations. For example where your geoverment happens. I think every nation has internet access there. The hardware costs for simple internet access also shouldn't be that high. Maybe it would also be possible to pay internet providers for a free basic access to the needed ressources. Maybe it comes even for free, since it is a good advertisment and the people don't have to pay the costs for setting the access up. The company providing this access just has to make available the rest of the internet and they'll have a new costumer. You can also provide 'surfing stations' on the streets with basic access to this ressources for free and advanced access if you pay (in fact Austria has this in the real world - at least goverment releated information is available there).
Last, but not least can create the internet ressource together with other countries, which should reduce the costs to a minimum (one big instead of many smaller, have similar/equal information only once, no need to provide information about the other countries, because it is already there, ...

If you have your own idea to set up a service providing the same you are able to do so, but to not allow evil nations to use this rule to evade the law you need to provide at least TWO ways descibed in 3.).

I hope you vote for it!

Every citizen should have the right to access and publish information without any barriers.


1.) Without barriers

Without barriers means anonymously, free and accessible also for people with handicaps.

2.) Gathering of freely available information

Everyone should have the right to anonymously access at least all information related to: political parties, political situations in other nations, religions, laws (own and other nations), all technologies that are not subject to copyrights or patents, the own language.

3.) Availability

A nation has to make information described in 3.) available by at least two of the following ways:

a.)Internet
A nation has to set up an internet accessible resource providing the information named in 3.)
It is also possible maintain this resource together with other UN members to save money. Every citizen has to be able to access at least this internet resource under the criteria described in 1.) For example a public surf station with internet access limited to this internet resource. The information has to be available in voice and visual form.

b.) Telephone
A nation has to set up a anonymously and freely accessible hotline which provides the information named in 2.) Instead of having a real person on the other end of the line also computer based systems are allowed.

c.) Physical meeting of a real person providing the information
Physical persons, that are able to provide the information described in 2.) even for blind and deaf people has to provide the wanted information for free. This persons are not allowed to provide any information about a meeting.

d.) Own way
A nation has to provide a way to access the information described in 2.) following the guidelines named in 1.)

4.) Providing information
Every person has the right publish the information named in 2.), even anonymously.

5.) Anti-Censorship
A nation is not allowed to censor this kind of information. Not even in war. A nation has to defend the availability of this information in their own, but also in other nations.

reads proposal,arches an eyebrow,reads some more,arches other eyebrow,sighs a bit

So this resolution would tie the hands of dictatorships and such.Forcing them to provide "information" to the masses?

And how would you enforce this and how would the UN check to make sure the information was accurate that was provided.

Further, I see these type governments simply leaving the UN to avoid this resolution,although many of them aren't even in the UN in the first place.

Who would decide on what information is objective, and how?


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Because 'evil' nations strongest nations are disinformation.
What makes a nation 'evil' also what makes them strong? As many nations who don't have phones and internet are very well off compared to some who have them. They learn from family not some computer what they need to know and then go out work and be happy doing more than trying to find out what NSUN deligates wear under their kilts or eat for a meal to see if it suits them and they deserve to be in office they hold.

People who think that the nations way is the only way to do it are not able to choose.
These are citizens of many nations and they live where they do because they like how things are run there. Thus they have chosen what they want and it not this if they don't already have it.

People that don't know about other political parties are not able to support them.People that don't know about cars or planes or yoyos are doing fine without them, often better than those that have them so why should they learn about something they don't need to know about. Waste of time learning something don't need when should be learning to make better chicken soup or corn bread or the things they need to survive in this universe.

People that don't know what democracy is are not able to use it.People that don't know what toilet paper is find a way to take care of business by other means and are very happy using that. Why teach them use something that produces more manure.. waste... and ends up just adding to polution problems...?

OOC: Also in section
3.) Availability
A nation has to make information described in 3.) available by at least two of the following ways:Beieve you men to say 'described in 2' here not '3'... also you need to look it over again as there are some spell/typo in it needs to be fixed.

IC:Also now they want news on political issues and such next will want news on who the Grand Pooba is sleeping with on Friday. Which is none their business unless he sleeping with them and they need to get there on time.

As far as this freedom to say what one wants and not name themselves for us is not going to fly. If an individual has not got the geehads to say it to a persons face then they souldn't say it. Give the person a chance to remove their geehads or at least consider the source of the manure tossed out by some folks all the time.


Anomonous Noshowupa,
Minister of Secrecy of Information,
Holder of the Silver Spoon of Cavirra,
Wearer of red spider drawers

What makes a nation 'evil' also what makes them strong?
The "What is evil?" is a good question.
I made this proposal to give every person to answer it by their own. You need information to answer it.
As many nations who don't have phones and internet are very well off compared to some who have them.
That's why I made the physical contact and create your own way option.
They learn from family not some computer what they need to know and then go out work and be happy doing more than trying to find out what NSUN deligates wear under their kilts or eat for a meal to see if it suits them and they deserve to be in office they hold.
That's not always true... of course ypu learn from your family, but things change. People also don't vote for the same party every time. But if there is only one mightful party able to get in contact with most of the people small/alternative parties have no chance to change anything. This only stop nations from evolving.
These are citizens of many nations and they live where they do because they like how things are run there. Thus they have chosen what they want and it not this if they don't already have it.
Of course there are, but they are not forced to change something and they are also not forced to get in contact with this information. But everyone should have to be informed. Information is needed to choose if something is right or wrong.

People that don't know about cars or planes or yoyos are doing fine without them, often better than those that have them so why should they learn about something they don't need to know about. Waste of time learning something don't need when should be learning to make better chicken soup or corn bread or the things they need to survive in this universe.
NOBODY should be forced! In most nations you aren't forced to vote. The only thing I want is to give people a RIGHT!
People that don't know what toilet paper is find a way to take care of business by other means and are very happy using that. Why teach them use something that produces more manure.. waste... and ends up just adding to polution problems...?
In fact we don't need to produce polution. The physical contact way doesn't produce polution and can produce jobs. Also the telephone and internet way don't produce that much polution. And if there is a better way you are able to add a polutionfree way.
OOC: Also in section
Beieve you men to say 'described in 2' here not '3'... also you need to look it over again as there are some spell/typo in it needs to be fixed.
I used the spellchecker. Could you tell me what needs to be fixed?

As far as this freedom to say what one wants and not name themselves for us is not going to fly. If an individual has not got the geehads to say it to a persons face then they souldn't say it. Give the person a chance to remove their geehads or at least consider the source of the manure tossed out by some folks all the time.
Nobody is needed to belive what is said.
It's an extension of freedom of press.
If you know that you get killed, because you say the truth you'll maybe not say it. With this rule it is easier to to help other people.

If someone knows, that someone is guilty or not guilty, but he doesn't want to be killed because of telling it he must remain anonymous. It's easier if it's a problem between two citzen, but what happens when the 'enemy' is a politican or an evil regime. The only real way is to inform other nations anonymously. It's even harder if that person doesn't know, who is trustable.

I think every nation that isn't afraid of it own citzens should have no problem with this prospoal. If the people know that their nation is doing the best for them they have no need to use this tight and the costs should be very low.
If the people need to use the right then it's good to have it.

About the accuracy of the information:
That's why I want the internet option. You are able to have one system for all nation which shouln't be expensive. It's just information.. texts and maybe some pictures. You won't need complex systems for that. And, just if we want, we could extend it it very quickly. The internet option also provides a way to have checked the information by every other nation.

For the direct contact. We could use people from other nations or some kind of UN funded organisation wich manages, controls and certifies the way the information is published. There are many way to do it. That's why I didn't add exact information about how everyone should publish the information. If you think your way is better/cheaper than the way of someone else. Why should you be forced to use something else?

And what if someone doesn't tell the truth?
The only organisation that really has the might to change something is the UN. So you will all have the chance to talk about it.

Maybe the proposal isn't perfect yet, but that's why we discuss about it.
And I think we really need to start somewhere. Better now than later!

2.) Gathering of freely available information
Everyone should have the right to anonymously access at least all information related to: political parties, political situations in other nations, religions, laws (own and other nations), all technologies that are not subject to copyrights or patents, the own language.This seems to be only section to detail information to be given here so it should be one referenced.

3.) Availability
A nation has to make information described in 3.) available by at least two of the following ways:
A nation has to set up an internet accessible resource providing the information named in 3.)Here you refer section 3 to itself section 3 when think you meant to refer to section 2 as have in following sections.


b.) Telephone
A nation has to set up a anonymously and freely accessible hotline which provides the information named in 2.) Instead of having a real person on the other end of the line also computer based systems are allowed.

c.) Physical meeting of a real person providing the information
Physical persons, that are able to provide the information described in 2.) even for blind and deaf people has to provide the wanted information for free. This persons are not allowed to provide any information about a meeting.

d.) Own way
A nation has to provide a way to access the information described in 2.) following the guidelines named in 1.)

4.) Providing information
Every person has the right publish the information named in 2.), even anonymously.


Also the use of A nation 'has to provide or make available or set up' means to me that they 'have to' do just what it says no exceptions. Thus this falls on all nations to provide this information even if it not needed or practical due to their natural selection of living conditions. Thus the question of funding comes up as where do we take/get funds from to do this..? When many in the nation prefer to see funds spent on health care and security; not wasted on providing information on what the Rehialic of Twinklevill is wearing these days to a political rally, a thing they know nothing about or have no desire to know about it.

While we approve of the general principle, we think this proposal as it stands far too sweeping. It leaves no privacy at all for political and religious entities; while we quite concur that such parties and churches are public in nature and should not be allowed to hide their dealings, the requirement to allow access to all information concerning them is a bit much.

The requirement for complete openness with regard to situations in foreign countries is downright dangerous. At a stroke it would remove intelligence advantages and make diplomatic negotiations facile. We are not entirely certain what the author's intention was with regard to this, but we cannot believe that exacerbating international tensions was part of it.

Finally, we note with concern that the one organisational unit which should never be exempted from any right to information -- government and related organisations, from the highest to lowest positions -- is absent from the list. This above all else would cause us to cast our lone vote against such a proposal, even were we not to think that the proposed powers are dangerously overgenerous.

I don't think that such a system would be feasible in a country such as Cobdenia, especially considering our internet (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Communications_and_Transport_in_Cobdenia#Internet) is rather different to most nations

First, let me state that, in principle, Logopia agrees in that individuals should have the right to be informed about their government’s dealing. That being said, we must also make clear that we stand against this particular proposal.

2.) Gathering of freely available information

Everyone should have the right to anonymously access at least all information related to: political parties, political situations in other nations, religions, laws (own and other nations), all technologies that are not subject to copyrights or patents, the own language.



Our main quarrel with this clause is it’s being worded as “all information related to…”. “All” is too broad. We believe the information accessible should be limited not to include the following
1) Information that is irrelevant.
2) Information that is restricted or classified in the interest of national security.
3) Trade and industrial secrets.
4) Private Personal information


We are also quite uncomfortable with this resolution forcing nations to provide their citizens with information about the “political situation in other nations”. We believe that the government should be accountable to its nationals and as so it should made government information available. We fail however, to see the point in having national governments with charged with compiling and publicizing truly encyclopedic knowledge about all information about the political situations in other nations.

3.) Availability

A nation has to make information described in 3.) available by at least two of the following ways…

Given the enormous diversity of nations in the UN, we believe it would be better to leave individual nations to decide the means that work best in their particular circumstances.

5.) Anti-Censorship
A nation is not allowed to censor this kind of information. Not even in war. A nation has to defend the availability of this information in their own, but also in other nations.

Once again we contend that national security overrides the right to information. Specially in times of war.

Thanks for the responses. We will create a new version of the draft which fixes the problematic passages.